Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death?

Denial of human rights obligations is difficult to punish

Question: Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death?
Position‹3 of 5›: Hard to say, because promoting human rights globally is complicated
Argument‹2 of 3›: Denial of human rights obligations is difficult to punish

The effectiveness of measures, such as sanctions, and under what conditions, is debatable.

The argument

Implementing effective measures to fight back human rights violations are difficult. Firstly, The universal declaration on global human rights is not a treaty in formal sense yet. Although it was approved by the general assembly, the UN charter did not give the general assembly the power to make international law, not to mention that violators are not committed to join such treaties or institutions. Consequently, negligence of international obligations is controversial to punish. Moreover, even if a binding documents are ratified, some states often use reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to avoid obligations. Take Saudi Arabia for an example, The country's RUD states that convention is not applicable when it conflicts with sharia law.

Premises

[P1]The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a formal treaty, and the UN General Assembly lacks the power to create binding international law, so violators face no clear legal obligation. [P2] Even when binding human rights documents exist, states like Saudi Arabia use reservations, understandings, and declarations to exempt themselves from compliance. [C] Therefore, it is hard to say whether the West still values human rights, because punishing violations like Khashoggi's killing is genuinely complicated by the weakness of international enforcement.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the difficulty of enforcement is a separate question from whether the West values human rights, which is what the question asks. The obstacles described — the UDHR's non-binding status, reservations, sovereignty — are real but constant; they do not explain the specific choice to downplay Khashoggi's killing, which turned on political and economic interests such as arms sales, oil and the Saudi alliance rather than on legal impossibility. Where the West has wanted to act it has found tools — sanctions, tribunals, conditionality — so 'it's just hard to enforce' can function as an alibi for selective application. On this view the case is better read as evidence of selectivity or hypocrisy, the sibling positions, than of neutral complexity, since the same governments enforce human-rights norms vigorously against adversaries while excusing allies.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The general difficulty of enforcing human rights is a constant feature of the system and does not explain the specific decision to excuse Khashoggi's killing, which turned on political and economic interests rather than legal impossibility. [Rejecting P2] Where the West has wanted to act it has used sanctions, tribunals and conditionality, so 'enforcement is hard' can serve as an alibi for selective application rather than a neutral complexity. [Rejecting C] Because the pattern is vigorous enforcement against adversaries and leniency toward allies, the case points to selectivity or hypocrisy rather than mere complication.